Clearing of oak forest land in Paso Robles (Justin's Deforestation) MERGED

I’d mentioned this in another discussion but it’s probably gotten lost there so I thought I’d start a new thread.

Late last week I started to read some disturbing posts on Facebook about recent actions of Justin Winery and their corporate owner, Fiji Water. Reports from Justin Smith of Saxum, Mark Adams of Ledge, and other Paso locals that Fiji has removed hundreds of oak trees in the Willow Creek area to clear new vineyard land for Justin Winery.

Not sure whether those who are not on Facebook can see these posts, but it’s sad to see so much land that’s had oak trees removed. It sounds like this was done according to County regulations, so blame also goes to SLO County for allowing this practice.

Others have reported that the Fiji people have been pumping lots of already-scarce groundwater to fill large ponds in the Templeton area.

Saw a new blog post about this today:
http://rivulets.blancsdenoir.com/2016/06/justin-winery-most-destructive-winery.html

I don’t know what Fiji/Justin Winery feels is their justification for this, but actions like this need to be brought to light.

Thanks, Ken, for posting this. Many of us here think the wine industry is a benign force, but there can be problems sometimes when profit is involved. When it comes to water, it seems that those with the largest straws get bigger gulps.

Not enough oak for their wines?

The pics make it look pretty ugly. Thanks for sharing these, Ken.
OTOH…what if…15 yrs down the road…this hillside and its distinctive terroir makes the
greatest Cab ever produced in Paso??? Where will all you tree-huggers be then??? [stirthepothal.gif] [stirthepothal.gif]
Tom

1 Like

http://rivulets.blancsdenoir.com/2016/06/justin-winery-most-destructive-winery.html

Many of you have heard the terrible news – Justin Vineyards and Winery cut down countless oak trees on the upper west side of Paso Robles to plant thousands of grape vines, thus drastically increasing their production.

This was originally brought to my attention by Mark Adams of Ledge Vineyards and Saxum Vineyards, and I felt compelled to write about it. I’m not a tree-hugging environmentalist, yet I believe Justin’s actions here to be outright abusive to all my friends and family in the wine business, and to the land itself. To those of you not in the know, el Paso de Robles stands for the pass of the oaks. The oak tree is an iconic symbol for the entire central coast of California – both in and out of the wine industry. The motives here are clear as day – money above all else.

Cutting down forests of oak trees and planting thousands of grapes not only deprives the atmosphere of oxygen producing trees in a world of increasing carbon dioxide, but also highly impacts the water levels in the area. I’ll leave the numbers up to the experts here, and I certainly hope they chime in. My message today is more ethical than it is scientific - and I would ask you readers to throw me a bone (or a cordon) to chew on.

They bought the land but…

and therefore they had the right to do whatever they wanted to with it, so long as it was permitted by law.

I started a thread on this already, Andrew - perhaps the mods can merge these:
Clearing of oak forest land in Paso Robles

Justin Smith reported on his Facebook post that five big lumber trucks per day have been hauling out oak logs for the past month - it’s not far from his James Berry Vineyard.

It’s disturbing on many levels, not the least of which is that apparently SLO County allows this…

Cutting down forests of oak trees and planting thousands of grapes not only deprives the atmosphere of oxygen producing trees in a world of increasing carbon dioxide, but also highly impacts the water levels in the area. I’ll leave the numbers up to the experts here, and I certainly hope they chime in. My message today is more ethical than it is scientific - and I would ask you readers to throw me a bone (or a cordon) to chew on.

This is the stupidest f*cking thing I have ever read. If you don’t understand how climate science or the carbon cycle work, apparently its OK to just make shit up as you go. Infuriating and gives the author zero credibility for anything they say.

Sounds like this is not far from Justin Smith’s James Berry Vineyard and other well-known vineyards nearby. Apparently just off Willow Creek Road near Peachy Canyon Road, in a spot not visible from the roadway.

Most vineyards I’ve seen in the Paso area have been planted in spots that most likely had few if any oaks before planting vines, either on land that had been cleared many years ago for grazing or orchards or on land that had never been oak woodland.

I’m betting the SLO County regulations for protecting oak woodland will change as a result of what Justin/Fiji have been doing.

They probably qualify as anti-Druidites.

Care to elaborate?

My first reaction was that verdant vines might be just as good for oxygen production as trees. I have no idea which plant draws more water from the water table.

Not sure why it’s so stupid. Matter of fact, the California Global Warming Solutions Act, passed in 2006, requires vineyards to monitor greenhouse gas emissions, so somebody must think there’s some kind of effect.

Woody plants of all types would recycle carbon, nitrogen, etc., but that doesn’t mean there’s an equivalence between them - I don’t know of any studies comparing the differences between trees and grapevines, although I would imagine that trees, because of their larger sizes, are probably going to store more carbon in their trunks, roots, and branches.

There may be a lower carbon footprint with a vineyard than with some other crops, and if you don’t fertilize, you probably don’t have the nitrogen run-off that you would have with something else, but that doesn’t mean there is no effect on the water - wine making simply uses a lot of water and California isn’t really that good at recycling it. Wineries like Benziger have figured out how to do a lot of recycling on site, but they’re a remarkable exception.

That’s not to say that people should or should not cut down trees - every vineyard on earth replaced whatever was there before and in CA that was often trees. Anyway, if anyone is interested, here’s a bit of research about it so we can all have some basis for discussion.

Of course people are up in arms about this. Once you have your own vineyard land cleared, it’s always a travesty for someone else to do the same thing.

But seriously, if you look at the satellite map of the broad area, it’s clear that numerous vineyard areas have been cleared all over; and also clear that there has been a lot of replanting of oak groves all over. It’s entirely possible that Justin is replanting another cleared area to compensate for the clearing of the land they want to use for vineyard. Not that it should matter once they own the land.

Pretty easy to find on the map, based on the photos: 35.606000, -120.792833

The author has an interesting criminal history…

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/crime/article39505335.html

To quote an ex-president: “There you go again…”

What I’d like to know is, WHERE WAS THE LORAX??

Not involved in the field of science directly, but I would think the name of the game is carbon sequestration rather than just oxygen production. Plant mass is primarily (if not entirely) from carbon collected from the air - so the question is which sequesters carbon more quickly on an acre by acre basis. It’s possible that vines might collect carbon faster based on their rapid growth. As far as water use - it totally depends on the species of the oaks - from what I can gather these are mostly Valley Oaks (Quercus Lobata), Blue Oaks (Douglasii) among other varieties (Agrifolia). These would be lower relative on Davis’ water use classification scale, but on an absolute basis trees are obviously heavier water users than shrubs.

My personal take - it’s a shame. Mature trees, particularly oaks are beautiful if nothing else. Everyone should be reminded though that many of the prior orchards throughout Paso Robles that are being torn up for vines likely took the place of oaks as well. Maybe a reminder that winegrowing is not always fully compatible with an ethos of pure conservation. What I would be concerned about, at least within that immediate area, is the possibility of rapid flooding and erosion now that the trees have been removed.

Unfortunately there has also been significant tree mortality over the last few years due to the drought. Based on some of the satellite map, it looks like there were several trees that may have already been dead. But obviously, judging from the topography and location of numerous vineyards in the neighborhood, that other oaks were previously cut down for vines.

Deforestation is an issue across the globe. Making lousy wine is an issue at Justin.

God, where to begin?

  • “oxygen production” has nothing to do with anything. Its one of those “I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul” kind of things.
  • Insofar as forests have an impact on atmospheric CO2, its because of carbon sequestered in the biomass. In other words, you have to show that the total biomass of the forest is meaningfully higher than a vineyard. It probably is higher, if I recall the relevant studies correctly, but it is hardly meaningful. For example, the mass reforestation of the Eastern US has had a de minimis effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and that’s basically half-a-continent of trees that weren’t there before. Fundamentally, forests aren’t particularly efficient at sequestering CO2.
  • Albedo also effects climate. A vineyard should have slightly higher albedo than a forest (forest have particularly low albedo). Because of the albedo / carbon sequestration interplay, deforestation is very close to being climate-neutral, and whether or not it ultimately has a warming or cooling effect depends on the specifics of the location / climate of the forest. Here, the deforestation probably has a slight warming effect given that there’s no winter snow cover, but the effect is SMALL, like really small, like, laughable to get worked up over from an environmental perspective. It is VERY close to break even.
  • I have no idea what is meant by “highly impacts water levels in the area”. It does not make sense that it would meaningfully effect water tables. Perhaps the writer is trying to say that runoff will be higher from a vineyard than a forest, but that is not inherently true. A well-designed vineyard should minimize erosion and runoff - and it is in the grower’s interest to make it so, since its their precious topsoil that otherwise would erode away.

Most critically, when morons spouting pseudoscience write about environmental impact, it harms the credibility of real scientists fighting against real environmental harm. Just as when the media gives a voice to quack doctors, it legitimizes things like the autism/vaccine scare, when the media gives a voice to uneducated wackjobs, it legitimizes folks dismissing AGW because scientists are “just a bunch of tree huggers who are making shit up”.

Viticulture is, relatively speaking, a low-impact form of agriculture. Vines are adapted to semi-arid climates. They grow - actually, make the best wine - on land not suitable for much else, maybe olives. Getting worked up over cutting down oaks for vines is a mild form of insanity; there are SO MANY more critical issues.